Podcast

Sunday, September 27, 2015

The Ultimate Pilot Story Checklist: Scandal

Olivia Pope runs a media-relations-focused law firm for scandal-plagued D.C. power players. In the pilot, new girl Quinn gets trained in by smooth operator Harrison and meets sarcastic Abby, lothario Stephen, and quiet Huck. The main story involves a medal of honor winner (Sully) who didn’t kill his girlfriend, but can’t prove it without admitting that he’s gay. In the other story, President Fitz Grant uses Olivia to silence a woman (Amanda Tanner) who claims to be his lover, but Olivia realizes that the woman is telling the truth, because Olivia also had an affair with Fitz and he used the same pet-name. Olivia decides to represent Amanda, setting up the season arc.

PART 1: IS
THIS A STRONG CONCEPT FOR AN ONGOING SERIES? (20/20)

The Pitch: Does this concept excite everyone who
hears about it?

Does the concept satisfy the
urges that get people to love and recommend this type of series?

Well,
it’s pretty original (soap, lawyer, political thriller), but it satisfies the
expectations of each of these.

Does
the series establish its own unique point of view on its setting?

It’s a very original setting, so it doesn’t need a
unique point of view.

Is
there a central relationship we haven’t seen in a series before?

The relationships within the firm are pretty
standard, but then we get a big new relationship: a black woman fixer pursued
by a white guy Republican president! Nope, we’ve never seen that one before.

Does
the ongoing concept of the series contain a fundamental (and possibly fun)
ironic contradiction?

Lawyers who never enter the courtroom.A scandal fixer who can’t stop
herself from creating the biggest scandal of all.

Does
the concept meet the content expectations of one particular intended network,
venue, or audience?

Yes, it’s very ABC (which would soon be renamed
“Shondaland”)

Even
if the setting is unpleasant, is there something about this premise that is
inherently appealing? (Something that will make the audience say, “Yes, I
will be able to root for some
aspect of this situation to recur episode after episode.”)

Yes, we see that they can use their powers for both
good and evil, and they’ll try to stay on the side of good, though they’ll
lie to themselves a lot about that.

Series Fundamentals: Will this concept generate a
strong ongoing series?

Is
there one character (or sometimes two, in separate storylines) that the
audience will choose to be their primary hero (although these heroes should
probably be surrounded by an ensemble that can more than hold their own)?

Just Olivia.

If
this is a TV series, is the hero role strong enough to get an actor to
abandon a movie career, come to work in TV for the first time, and sign a
five-year contract before shooting the pilot? (And even if not for TV, is the
hero role still that strong, simply for narrative purposes?)

Yes. (Though Washington’s movie career wasn’t as
strong as it should have been. I had been rooting for her since I saw Lift at Sundance.)

Is the
show set in an unsafe space?

Yes, it’s made clear that you’re not allowed to date
any one or not know anything, or cry long as you’re there.

Is
this a setting that will bring (or has brought) different economic classes
together?

Yes and no.It will be almost entirely about rich people, but there will just
enough poor people.

Will
trouble walk in the door on a regular basis?

Literally.

Will
the heroes be forced to engage in both physical and cerebral activity on a
regular basis?

Yes and no.Mostly cerebral, just a little physical.

Are
there big stakes that will persist episode after episode?

Yes, we find this out at the end when she takes on
the president.

Will
the ongoing situation produce goals or mini-goals that can be satisfactorily
resolved on a regular basis?

Yes, there will also be a case of the week every
week.

The Pilot: Will this pilot episode be marketable and
generate word of mouth?

Does
the pilot contain all of the entertainment value inherent in the premise
(rather than just setting everything up and promising that the fun will start
next week)?

Yes.

Does the pilot feature an image we haven’t seen before (that can be used
to promote the show)?

Sadly, it’s this: A powerful black woman fronting a
TV show.(And also later kissing
the president, but I don’t remember if that was shown before it aired.)

Is
there something bold, weird, and never-before-seen about this concept and/or
pilot?

Lots.

Is there a “HOLY CRAP!” scene somewhere along the way in the pilot (to
create word of mouth)?

Kissing the president.

Does
the pilot build up potential energy that will power future episodes (secrets
that will come out, potential romances, etc.)?

Lots, for many characters.

Even
if this is episodic, is there a major twist or escalation at the end (though
sometimes this twist will only be new to, or only revealed to, the audience)
that will kick future episodes up a notch?

The big revelation to the audience only: She had an
affair with the president in the past. Escalation for future episodes: She
takes on the president.

PART 2: IS THIS A COMPELLING
HERO (OR CO-HEROES IN DIFFERENT STORYLINES)? (15/16)

Believe: Do we recognize the hero (or co-heroes) as
human?

Does
the hero have a moment of humanity early on? (A
funny, or kind, or oddball, or out-of-character, or comically vain, or
unique-but-universal “I thought I was the only one who did that!” moment?)

Oddball: She’s giving Stephen relationship advice
while casually talking about how they’re about to confront Ukranian gangsters
and break a deal with them.

Does
the hero have a well-defined public identity?

The ultimate fixer.Everybody gasps when they hear her name.

Does
that ironically contrast with a hidden interior self?

She’s kind of a mess.

Does
the hero have three rules he or she lives by (either stated or implied)?

She has many explicit rules: Don’t lie. No crying. I
always trust my gut.She breaks
all three of those rules by the end, which lets us know that this will be a
deeply hypocritical heroine, and yet we still like her, because we’re
hypocrites.

Does
the hero have a consistent metaphor family (drawn
from his or her job, background, or developmental state)?

Does the hero have a great flaw
that is the flip side of his or her great strength?

She’s
addicted to power (romantically and otherwise) and she’s morally and legally
slippery.

Does
the hero feel that this flaw cannot be resolved until it’s time to abandon
the world of the show?

Yes.

Does
the flaw resonate with the theme and/or setting of the show?

Very much: she solves scandals but can’t keep
herself from causing new ones.

Invest: Can we trust the hero (or co-heroes) to
tackle this challenge?

Does the hero have a great
strength that is the flip side of his great flaw?

She
great at wielding and manipulating power.

Is the hero good at his or her
job (or family role, if that’s his or her primary role)?

Very,
very much so.

Is the
hero surrounded by people who sorely lack his or her most valuable quality?

Not really.Most of her employees are sort of mini-versions of her, just less
so.(I suspect that this is why
Henry Cusick bailed after the short first season: he wasn’t allowed to
distinguish himself.)In fact,
her employees are actually better at following her rules than she is: Quinn
actually can trust her gut.

Is the
hero curious?

Yes and no.She tries not to be about certain things, but she can’t resist.

Is the
hero generally resourceful?

Extremely.

Does the hero use unique skills to solve problems (rather than doing what
anybody else on the show would do)?

Yes, she has unique pull and unique relationships.

PART 3: IS THIS A STRONG
ENSEMBLE (BEYOND THE HERO OR CO-HEROES)?(12/13)

Powerful: Is each member
of the ensemble able to hold his or her own?

If
this is a network TV series, are there at least two more roles that are
strong enough to get TV veterans to sign their own five-year contracts? (And
even if not for TV, are the characters still that strong, simply for
narrative purposes?)

Yes and no: they got Cusick but lost him. Ultimately,
Olivia’s team was downplayed and the presidential politics were played up,
partially because they got better actors on that side.

Are
all of the other regular roles strong enough on the page in this first
episode to attract great actors? (ditto)

Well, not great but good.

Does each member of the ensemble
have a distinct and defensible point of view?

Yes
and no: they’re distinct but not defensible: They all vote down the case for
different reasons, but they then fail to defend those points of view and
instantly knuckle under. Only Quinn manages to change her mind about
something.

Is
each character defined primarily by actions and attitudes, not by his or her
backstory?

Yes, we don’t get backstories yet, except a brief
mention of Huck’s CIA past.Their backstories will become much richer (and more ludicrous) later,
but for now they’re defined by their actions and reactions to this case.

Do all of the
characters consciously and unconsciously prioritize their own wants, rather
than the wants of others? (Good characters don’t
serve good, evil characters don’t serve evil.)

Yes and no. Though they insist that they’re
serving good, they all know deep down that they aren’t for much of the
time.It’s very impressive that
they admit at the end that they don’t care who really did it because they’re
just representing their client, but even there, they characters aren’t
prioritizing their own wants.It’s all about Olivia’s wants.

Do
most of the main characters have some form of decision-making power? (And is
the characters’ boss or bosses also part of the cast, so that major decisions
will not be made by non-regulars?)

Olivia and the president do, of course, and the
other do when out in the field.

Balanced: Do the members
of the ensemble balance each other out?

Whether this is a premise or
episodic pilot, is there one point-of-view who needs this world explained
(who may or may not be the hero)?

Quinn

Does
it take some effort for the POV character to extract other characters’
backstories?

Yes, they keep shutting her out.

Are the non-3-dimensional
characters impartially polarized into head, heart and gut (or various forms
of 2-way or 4-way polarization)?

Is
there at least one prickly character who creates sparks whenever he or she
appears?

Well, Olivia herself basically qualifies, but if we
don’t count her…they try with Abby, but the actress doesn’t create enough
sparks, so they put Cyrus in this role in future episodes (and Mellie, to a
certain extent), and that worked better.

PART 4: IS THE PILOT
EPISODE A STRONG STAND-ALONE STORY AND GOOD TEMPLATE FOR THE ONGOING SERIES?
(22/22)

Template: Does this match
and/or establish the standard format of this type of series

Does
the pilot have (or establish) the average length for its format?

44 minutes.

If
this is intended for a form of commercial media, does the pilot have the
right number of commercial breaks for its intended venue?

Yes.

If
this is intended for commercial TV, does every act end on a cliffhanger or
escalation, especially the middle one (and, if not intended for commercial
TV, does it still have escalations happening in roughly the same places,
simply for narrative purposes)?

Second Half: Is the mini-goal resolved as
the ongoing trouble escalates?

Does
the hero try the hard way from this point on?

Soldier: Try new methods. President: Watch her full
time.

By
halfway through, are character decisions driving the plot, rather than
external plot complications?

Yes, for both.

Are
the stakes increased as the pace increases and the motivation escalates?

Yes.

Does a
further setback force the hero to adopt a wider view of the problem?

Soldier: They find alibi proof, but it’s video of
him kissing another man.President: Olivia actually listens to the accuser.

After
that setback, does the hero finally commit to pursuing a corrected goal?

Soldier: They try to convince him to come out.
President: Olivia confronts the president.

Before
the final quarter of the story begins, (if not long before) has the hero
switched to being proactive, instead of reactive?

Yes.

After
the climax, does either the hero, the point of view character or a guest star
have a personal revelation and/or life change, possibly revealed through
reversible behavior?

Yes, soldier comes out. Olivia admits to herself
that her feelings for the president have comprised her judgment and morality.
Soldier refuses to name his lover, then he does.

PART 5: IS EACH
SCENE THE BEST IT CAN BE? (19/23) (After being humiliated by Olivia, the
president’s accuser attempts suicide. Quinn waits in the hospital and then
briefs Olivia.

The Set-Up: Does this scene begin with the essential
elements it needs?

Were tense and/or
hopeful (and usually false) expectations for this interaction established
beforehand?

Before
the commercial break, we saw Quinn’s discomfort before and then her horror at
the news.

Does the scene eliminate small
talk and repeated beats by cutting out the beginning (or possibly even the
middle)?

Yes,
they’re already talking.

Is this an intimidating setting
that keeps characters active?

Somewhat.
They spying on someone at a hospital.

Is one of the scene partners not
planning to have this conversation (and quite possibly has something better
to do)?

Olivia
doesn’t intend to have the second half of the conversation, and Quinn has to
call after her to detain her.

Is there at least one non-plot
element complicating the scene?

Not
really.

Does the scene establish its own
mini-ticking-clock (if only through subconscious anticipation)?

Olivia
told the rest of her team before she left, “I’ll be back!”

The Conflict: Do the conflicts play out in a lively
manner?

Does this scene both advance the
plot and reveal character?

We
suddenly suspect much more strongly that Olivia had an affair with the
president, and we get to see another side of her.

Are one or more characters in
the scene emotionally affected by this interaction or action as the scene
progresses?

Olivia’s
composure finally cracks.

Does the audience have (or
develop) a rooting interest in this scene (which may sometimes shift)?

Our
rooting interest has always been uncertain

Are two agendas genuinely
clashing (rather than merely two personalities)?

Quinn
wants to change Olivia’s mind.

Does the scene have both a
surface conflict and a suppressed conflict (one of which is the primary
conflict in this scene)?

Surface:
what do we do about this suicidal woman? Suppressed: What is our
relationship? Are you a good person or not? What’s really going on with you?
Can anyone trust their gut? Etc.

Is the suppressed conflict
(which may or may not come to the surface) implied through subtext (and/or
called out by the other character)?

Talking
about someone else and talking about herself: “People are crazy, they get
fixated on famous people, they stalk them.”

Are the characters cagy (or in
denial) about their own feelings?

Olivia
is both.

Do characters use verbal tricks
and traps to get what they want, not just direct confrontation?

No, it’s
direct.

Is there re-blocking, including
literal push and pull between the scene partners (often resulting in just one
touch)?

No
touching

Are objects given or taken,
representing larger values?

No
objects.

If this is a big scene, is it
broken down into a series of mini-goals?

First
inform Olivia, then make the case for the accuser.

The Outcome: Does this scene change the story going
forward?

As a result of this scene, does
at least one of the scene partners end up doing something that he or she
didn’t intend to do when the scene began?

Olivia
storms off to barge into the Oval Office.

Does the outcome of the scene
ironically reverse (and/or ironically fulfill) the original intention?

Quinn
pleading does no good, until she says the one thing that would change
Olivia’s mind without realizing it.

Are previously-asked
questions answered?

Did
they really have an affair?What
was the message that the accuser wanted to send?

Are new questions posed that
will be left unanswered for now?

What
will Olivia do?What really
happened between her and the president.

Is the audience left with a
growing hope and/or fear for what might happen next? (Not just in the next
scene, but generally)

Very
much so.

Does the scene cut out early, on
a question (possibly to be answered instantly by the circumstances of the
next scene)?

Implied
question: Where’s she going.Then we cut to the White House.

PART 6: IS THIS
POWERFUL DIALOGUE? (14/15)

Empathetic: Is the dialogue true to human nature?

Does the writing demonstrate
empathy for all of the characters?

Ultimately,
yes.At times, the show teeters
on the brink of Sorkin-disease, in which all non-stars are weak strawmen who
collapse in defeat when blow away by the heroes’ brilliance, but each of
their opponents eventually gets his or her own.

Does each of the characters,
including the hero, have a limited perspective?

Yes,
it turns out that she has a big blind spot.

Are the characters resistant to
openly admitting their feelings (to others and even to themselves)?

Yes.They’re constantly lying to
themselves about their feelings.

Do the characters avoid saying
things they wouldn’t say?

Many
things are said in code.

Do the characters listen poorly?

Very
much so.

Do the characters interrupt each
other more often than not?

Very
much so.

Specific: Is the dialogue specific to this world and
each personality?

Does the dialogue capture the
culturally-specific syntax of the characters (without necessarily attempting
to replicate non-standard pronunciation)?

No.Everybody speaks very clearly in
Rhimes shows.There’s no
cultural specificity here.Everyone is totally deracialized in the pilot, though that will
change.

Does the dialogue capture the
jargon of the profession and/or setting?

Yes.

Does the dialogue capture the
tradecraft of the profession being portrayed?

Very
much so.

Heightened: Is the dialogue more pointed and dynamic
than real talk?

Is the dialogue more concise
than real talk?

Yes.

Does the dialogue have more
personality than real talk?

Yes.

Is there a minimum of commas in
the dialogue (the lines are not prefaced with Yes, No, Well, Look, or the
other character’s name)?

Yes
and no.There are lots of long
eloquent speeches, but Rhimes knows how to break up long thoughts into a
series of short, rousing, rhythmic sentences that doesn’t sound convoluted.

Is there one gutpunch scene,
where the subtext falls away and the characters really lay into each other?

Yes,
the oval office scene.

PART 7: DOES THE PILOT MANAGE ITS TONE
TO CREATE AND FULFILL AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS? (8/10)

Genre and Mood: Does the series tap into
pre-established expectations?

Does the series fit within one
genre (or compatible sub-genres)?

It’s an
odd and somewhat uncomfortable mix of soap / lawyer show / political show,
and eventually spy show, though that isn’t yet obvious in the pilot.The show didn’t really take off until
the second season when it become primarily a political thriller.

Are unrealistic genre-specific
elements a big metaphor for a more common experience (not how life really is,
but how life really feels)?

If there are multiple
storylines, do they establish the spectrum of moods available within that
overall mood?

Yes:
the stand-alone story is a straight-up heroic narrative about protecting an
innocent man.The serialized
story is much more morally murky.

Is there a moment early on that
establishes the type and level of jeopardy?

Yes,
when they face down the gangster: There is mortal danger involved. Shortly
afterwards, when Sully looks guilty, we get moral danger as well.

Framing: Does the pilot set, reset, upset and
ultimately exceed its own expectations?

Are there framing devices
(flashforwards, framing sequences and/or first person narration) to set the
mood, pose a dramatic question, and/or pose ongoing questions?

Shockingly
no, though this would become common in later episodes and later Rhimes shows.
We just dive right in.(The
director makes up for this by putting in literal framing devices throughout,
framing almost every shot through glass or around corners, [literally]
reflecting the theme of public vs. private)

Is there a dramatic question
posed early on, which will establish in the audience’s mind which moment will
mark the end of the pilot?

Yes,
the subtly prepare us for the fact that we won’t ever find out who killed the
girlfriend.

Are set-up and pay-off used to
dazzle the audience, distracting attention from plot contrivances?

The
secret that Olivia had an affair with the president is set-up very skillfully
throughout the episode and then pays off big-time

Is the dramatic question of the
pilot episode’s plot answered near the end of the story?

It’s
answered a little early when he’s arrested (giving Olivia time to move on to
the B plot), then she comes back and springs him after all in the final act.

PART 8: DOES
THE PILOT CREATE A MEANINGFUL ONGOING THEME? (11/14)

Pervasive: Is the
theme interwoven into many aspects of the show?

Does
the ensemble as a whole have a unique philosophy about how to fill their role
(and competition from an allied force with a different philosophy)?

Very much so: they’re “gladiators in suits,” and
they have contempt for how normal law firms are run. (Although we quickly
realize that this is bullshit and they know it.)

Does
the pilot have a statement of philosophy and/or theme, usually either at the
beginning or ¾ of the way in. (Sometimes this will be the ensemble’s stated
statement of philosophy, sometimes this merely be the implied theme of the
series itself.)

There’s a false one early on:“We all get paid crap salaries
because we’re the good guys.” and “Because that’s what you are when you work
for Olivia: a gladiator in a suit.”But when she arrives, they laugh: “Did Harrison feed you a line about
being a gladiator in a suit?” Later, he comes clean: “the reason we're not a
law firm is we don't have to play within the rules of the law. We're fixers,
crisis managers. We make the problems of our client, big or small, go away. It's
not about solving a crime. It's not about justice. It's about our client.”Everything is slippery on this show.

Can the show’s overall ongoing
theme be stated in the form of a classic good vs. good (or evil vs. evil)
dilemma?

Public
vs. private

Throughout the pilot, do the
characters have to choose between goods, or between evils, instead of
choosing between good and evil?

Constantly.Pay a kidnapper to get your son
back?Protect your client by
lying to the cops? Threaten an accuser if you think she’s lying?

Are
the storylines in the pilot thematically linked (preferably in an indirect,
subtle way)?

Very much so.Olivia realizes at the end that she is living a lie just like Sully,
and she can talk him out of it but not herself.

Very much so.This will be a “defense lawyer” show that won’t shy away from the
intense moral dilemmas of the job.

Grounded: Do the
stakes ring true to the world of the audience?

Does the series’ set-up reflect
the way the world works?

Yes and
no.In some ways, it’s very
realistic (lawyers not going to court, protecting the 1% to ludicrous
extremes, etc.) but there’s no shortage of “the world doesn’t work that way”
howlers. For instance: the D.A. agrees to wait outside her door for 40
minutes while she tries to find new evidence! Rhimes’s respect forhow the world works fluctuates
wildly.

Does the series have authentic
things to say about this type of setting?

Yes.
Many of the unique details about law and the halls of power ring true.

Does the ongoing concept include
twinges of real life national pain?

Very
much so: Gays in the military, cheating politicians, many more.

Are these issues presented in a
way that avoids moral hypocrisy?

Yes and
no.The “issue of the week” will
usually be presented in a complex and non-hypocritical way.As for the firm, the show will hypocritically
twist things so that their machinations wind up serving justice, allowing us
to be shocked at their bad ethics while reassuring us that nothing really bad
happens as a result.

Do all of the actions in the
pilot have real consequences?

Yes:
the kidnappers get away,the
real murderer is uncaught, lives are destroyed.

Untidy: Is the
dilemma ultimately irresolvable?

Do the characters refuse (or
fail) to synthesize the meaning of the pilot episode’s story, forcing the
audience to do that?

She
synthesizes it, but she does it in the speech to Sully, so it’s sublimated
and motivated, so that’s okay.

Does the end of the pilot leave
the thematic dilemma wide open and irresolvable?

Yes,
Sully can come out, but she can’t without wrecking the country and her
career.